Arrogant and overpaid, out of touch and ideologically driven – the dispute between British Airways management and BA's cabin crew unions has ground to a stalemate with the leadership of both sides worthy of this description.

Recently, I have flown both as one of the operating pilots and as a normal passenger on a strike day. I have friends among cabin crew who are striking, and also among those who are working during the strikes. Almost all my flight crew colleagues are appalled at the intransigence and stubbornness on display – but their sympathies are split: some supporting management by flying as cabin crew during the strikes, others looking for any legal excuse to help the strikers. Most would urge both sides to put aside their pride and find a mutually acceptable solution.

I have worked for BA for a couple of decades and potentially have a couple more ahead of me. As pilots, I would argue, we are the group with the highest proportion of those whose entire career is invested with the one employer. Our interest is the long-term health of BA – more so than our recently-appointed chief executive, more so than the joint general secretaries of Unite. So we see the complexities of this dispute where the media often seem to polarise and simplify.

BA has lost nearly £1bn in the last two years and it must both improve its revenue and reduce its costs to survive. All other work groups have agreed to changes to reduce their share of costs and "In Flight Customer Experience" must contribute too (IFCE is the BA name for the department that includes cabin crew as its overwhelming majority). Discussions were held and both sides declared that their suggestions for the cost savings were sufficient and fair. Unfortunately, neither side's recipe suited the palate of the other.

Eventually, the management decided to impose changes. They carefully constructed a package which, it was calculated, would not be a legal change to contracts of employment of the current staff, but which reduced new joiners' pay rates and reduced the number of crew on board long-haul aircraft. The two obvious choices facing the union representing the cabin crew, Bassa/Unite, was either to acquiesce or to undertake industrial action.

They challenged the change to contracts in the courts but lost, as most independent commentators judged they would. At the same time, the union announced the commencement of a ballot for industrial action.

The perceived wisdom outside the airline seems to be that the cabin crew are badly led, seeking to retain unjustifiable terms and conditions and are being driven to a defeat. No one I have spoken to can believe the stupidity of Derek Simpson sending Twitter messages from the negotiating table, or that Unite originally balloted employees who had accepted voluntary redundancy, or the ill-judged "12 days of Christmas" strike call. Equally, no one seems able to explain why BA was reluctant to grant a no-cost compromise – reinstating travel perks for those who went on strike in March – in order to cancel the most recent set of strikes.

Having recently returned from a trip during the strike, what ordinary passengers can't see is the fear, intimidation and unsustainable conditions endured by those who are working. The dispute is partly around whether, on a 747 Jumbo, the cabin crew can be reduced from 15 to 14; yet, on strike days, they are being (legally) operated with 12. The 12 are a mixture of non-crew hastily trained from other departments, those who have never supported the action, some who have become dissatisfied with their union's performance and those who cannot afford to risk their travel concessions which make commuting to work affordable. There is no trust among the crew: everyone could be about to pass on your thoughts and deeds to either side's perceived bullies.

On my flight as a passenger, these problems were compounded by a constant debate among passengers, crew, airport staff and pilots as to who is to blame, and whether BA will ever recover. The In Flight Customer Experience is more reminiscent of our no-frills competitors and apologies are the currency of communication. In our highly competitive business, this is not sustainable for much longer.

As pilots, our closest colleagues are the cabin crew; indeed, many of my fellow pilots are married to other crew. So at one end of the risk scale, my livelihood and career is at risk; at the other, my job satisfaction will be changed forever. Whatever the outcome, I wonder why?

Our woefully inadequate industrial relations law does not help. The modern statutory rules for negotiating changes with employees, enjoyed by almost all of our European neighbours, stand in stark contrast to our union tort immunity system based on the old Master and Servant Acts of the 19th century.

No one stands to gain from prolonging this dispute. Chief executives and their senior management rarely survive in post for long after a bitter strike; unions lose the ability to negotiate effectively until their members have recovered; passengers suffer lower standards and less choice; and shareholders suffer diminished returns. Other employee groups suffer from a weakened employer, poisoned workplace relationships and constant criticism of their company from outsiders.

BA is a "people business". In part, BA's product is the route network and aircraft seat configuration; but where it wins or loses against the ever-stronger competition is the way its employees treat its customers. A win for either side, now, will be a pyrrhic victory. Only compromise can start the rebuilding of trust and self-confidence that is necessary to deliver results in the airline business.

All of my colleagues at BA must act to pressure Willie Walsh, Derek Simpson and Tony Woodley to put egos aside and act as professionally, as all airline staff must, to keep the business safe. They must find the compromise that will enable the healing to start. And we must hope they are not too late for us all.